Skip to main content

About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
in washington. the writing has appeared in "the new york times," "politico," foreign policy and washington monthly among others. they came to us last night from virginia, took a late night train and what i'd like to do is turn it over to you for your thoughts and comments to start off. >> thank you very much. i'm going to start for us today. let me thank you much for hosting us to thank you for coming. it's an honor pleasure and we look forward to nature scene discussion today. i'm going to start with two provocative themes from our new book, "going to tehran: why the united states must come to terms with the islamic republic of iran". the first of these means, and these two get at the heart of our book. the united states is today enhanced and for the past two years a power and relative decline in the middle east. the second core team as the biggest beneficiary of american ongoing decline in the middle east is the islamic republic of iran. if you're not sure you agree with these propositions, i want to ask you to compare the relative position of the united states and the islamic republic o
, there seem to be two approaches to foreign policy in the twenty-first century. one of the neo conservatives which have great power in this administration. check name names which i will not do. >> i do in this book. >> the new conservative ideological approach to foreign policy seems to be prevalent now as opposed to the traditional national interest pragmatic approach or is there some other approach? what do you see in the twenty-first century? >> i see a policy regardless who the president is of clear national interest and a policy must be for any nation whether it is the russians or the chinese, all nations, all individuals respond in their own self-interest, nothing wrong with that. that is predictable. the policy of our country, foreign policy, all the instruments of power it that you use to frame a policy must be driven with some higher purpose. i mentioned purpose, we lost purpose. we have been about ricocheting crisis to crisis. there's no strategic thinking, hasn't been strategic thinking for a long time in our foreign policy. it is the point i keep making. so does dick lugar who is
are subscribers and readers which we've carried out in collaboration with foreign policy and lots of other conferences and publications around south asian affairs. so anyway, we're all very pleased to have this occasion to bring us together, and the purpose today is to have a very serious discussion about the ideas and subjects that are in the book and that are, obviously, still alive as dilemmas for american foreign policy. so let me introduce peter and welcome him to the podium. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, steve, and thank you for all of you coming today and for c-span for covering this. steve was instrumental in making this whole project happen, so i'm very grateful to him. thank you, also, to oxford university press which published the book and did, i think, a fine job in terms of presenting the material. thank you, also, to my co-editor, katherine, and thanks also to people here at the foundation, brian fishman, patrick doherty, jennifer roland and andrew lev witch who were also involved in making the book possible. as steve indicated, the reason we felt this project was neces
are the most impressive and smartest of all our foreign policy thinkers. and so i made that comment not too long ago, and someone said how could that be? why would the military guys be smarter? i said, well, if for no other reason, the same reason secretary gates gave the speech that he gave out in kansas on a lecture or series two months ago when he devoted his speech to the congress and the united states putting more resources in the state department, more resources in diplomacy, more resources in soft power. because he understands as secretary of defense or anyone who wears the uniform is burden is now on our soldiers. and we have overloaded the circuits. of we've asked our military to damn near do everything. well, we should never, ever put the military in that position. not only are they not capable of doing everything, they can't. they're human. and so consequently, we're seeing a great deterioration in the quality of our army and the marines, we're doing great damage to our fort structure. and i talk about that in the book. but soft power, how do we use all the instruments of our gov
to the conservative viewpoint, whether it be on foreign policy and anti communism, economic conservative as some, constitutionalism or what today is called social conservatism more likely than can -- traditional conservatism. the issues were different and less clear back then but there has always been social conservatism. rusher had an important ally named frank meyer remains sufficiently respected and known among at least an older generation of conservatives that there is a frank meyer society in washington which i am going to be a group of conservative leaders who keep his memory alive. they are going to be meeting monday night and i will be speaking to them. meyer has been described by rusher as the intellectual engine of the conservative movement. he too was an ex-communist as burnham was. but meyer was a conservative activist. a passion that conservative activists. rusher even told me that meyer had once been a militant communist. rusher had been a militant republican, quote, they are not all that far apart except in what they believe. what rusher meant by that was he had it tremendous attr
to $100 trillion and that is a stunning number. we had a dysfunctional foreign policy, we had this problem of the baby boom generation. and we have a 12 from kindergarten education system. it is not too late. we have about that kind of timeframe in order to start moving. if we don't move soon, it becomes almost impossible to fix this without upheaval. i happen to actually be fairly optimistic. i do think two things. i think the american sense of life, americans fundamentally don't like big government. when times seem to be moving the wrong direction, sometimes we are surprised. i think this is a nice caviar. the biggest thing that we have going for us is that we have the best ideas. the bad news is that things have railed over and over again. people tell me how surprised they were when the soviet union failed. but communism always fails. it did not surprise me at all. the question is when it does, will we be there with the right ideas to move the country in the right direction. even though i think we will win because we have the right ideas. in regards to individual objects, i think we had
states foreign policy tries to dictate terms to places like bolivia, less than 1% of excess cocaine in bolivia with ends up in the united states. and yet the heavyhanded nature of u.s. policy, you would think this was some kind of flood coming from bolivia the way we dictate terms to that country. and so, now, imagine if the united nations and the audience of the u.n. convention were to treat coffee the way, with the contempt they treat coca, right? what would happen if they -- and they've told bolivians and peruvians you have to stop chewing coca which they've been doing for centuries, if not thousands of years. imagine if they did that to the united states, you know, coffee, you have to give up this habit now. what would happen? well, a friend of mine actually did this. he was a performance art major, andrew. he went to amherst college, and in 2001 he conspire with the the school administration and student government to secretly ban coffee or for one day without notice during finals week as a performance art project. so all these students get up in the morning, and there's no coff
a dysfunctional foreign policy, we have a big problem with demographics and the retirement of the baby boom generation as a non-trivial problem, and we have a field of case triple the educational system by any kind of economic stance. we have the potential for really bad times if we do not change direction. this is good news, it isn't too late because the skill exponential and about eight years but we have about that kind of time frame in order to start moving. if we don't move in the next four or five years it becomes almost impossible mathematically to fix a problem without some kind of a social real upheaval that wouldn't be fun i don't think to date i happen to be even with the recent election results i happen to be fairly optimistic, and i know that sounds strange. i do think there are two things. i think for the american sense of life is a protector to the degree that americans fundamentally in some level don't like big government. they don't like big government, and when times seem to be going the wrong direction and get positive surprises like we did in 2010 when the american pushba
though the government had speakers at the press club and they had a policy of having the foreign dignitaries at the press club and so women who were assigned to cover these people were cooped up in this hot miserable balcony where they couldn't eat and here they could see the man on the floor having a nice lunch also they didn't have enough milk to but that was with the status of the women in those days there was a woman at the "washington post" i knew well who was taken off the prized civil-rights assignment at the post because the people that were involved in this civil rights protest were going to have meetings here at the press club and because women were not allowed in the press club they were complaining about this and said we will find a man for this. that's the way things work to the estimate was your beat the "washington post"? >> i have a variety of beads at the washington post. i covered the suburbs in the city of alexandria and covered the course general sessions that was now the superior court and i covered welfare and i covered education, the d.c. public schools. i
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)